D&D 4E 4e - Opportunity for DMs to Take Your Power Back

[Sundragon2012]

So, I was talking to my next-door neighbor the other day, who is also a DM and has been playing for about twelve years (I've played for 14). Neighbor is always trying to recruit me for his campaign, but our group plays on the same night his does, so it's not going to happen. Anyway, he's showing me the Spell Compendium, which he has just bought, and telling me about some of the cool spells in it. He offers to let me borrow it. Then he says, "And your DM will have to let you use it, 'cause it's WotC." That's right, my neighbor, who's been a DM for more than a decade, actually believes that as a DM he is required to allow anything in any book published by WotC.

I wonder how common this belief is? Don't some of the books published by WotC explicitly contradict this? Possibly relevant data: he doesn't read ENWorld or other D&D sites on the internet.

By the way, I pretty much agree with the OP.

I'm disappointed when I encounter this, but scenerios like this aren't terribly uncommon. Ok, maybe a bit uncommon for a DM of 10yrs or more, but very common in newer DMs. This kind of this is directly contradicted by WoTCs official stance ie. the DM is the final authority. However, in practice the overarching marketing philosophy of "options not restrictions" which is a good philosophy in theory has turned DMs who do not read that as granting players care blanche access to everything in every WoTC book into some kind of heretic.

Hopefully D&D 4e will reiterate very clearly and concisely that the DM's authority in his or her game trumps that of any given splatbook and make sure players see this and understand it clearly. DMs don't have a right to abuse their players or ruin their fun, but they have the right to be final arbiter on whatever is and is not allowed in their game.



Sundragon

 

[WayneLigon]

Oh yeah, it engendered choice to the point where it seemed to term DMs into jellyfish.

That's not a WoTC problem or an edition problem, it's a problem with a GM that can't adapt. Before, there simply wasn't a lot of choice that didn't reside with the GM - mostly, new rules subsets or third-party classes. The availablilty of choice, even in core rules or supplements, is never bad. Some GM's simply didn't step up to the plate and thought they either could go on as they had or they blithely allowed anything from WoTC into their games with the accordingly poor results. They never had to learn the lesson before that just becauise something exists in print, it doesn't mean you have to allow it. This is their failing and theirs alone, with no part of the blame on the producers of that content.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I know full well that on the internet it is very easy to take things out of context and to create arguments where there are none, especially with a topic that can be touchy to some. I am reiterating again for the sake of clarity:

Note, this thread is NOT about DMs abusing players, that is not the kind of power I'm referring to, so lets not derail this with an argument that is not being made or implied.

Please read the OP entirely and in its full context before replying. This way we can avoid arguments that have no place on thread, straw men, logical fallacies, well poisonings, etc. Thanks for your cooperation.


Sundragon

 

[Sundragon2012]

That's not a WoTC problem or an edition problem, it's a problem with a GM that can't adapt. Before, there simply wasn't a lot of choice that didn't reside with the GM - mostly, new rules subsets or third-party classes. The availablilty of choice, even in core rules or supplements, is never bad. Some GM's simply didn't step up to the plate and thought they either could go on as they had or they blithely allowed anything from WoTC into their games with the accordingly poor results. They never had to learn the lesson before that just becauise something exists in print, it doesn't mean you have to allow it. This is their failing and theirs alone, with no part of the blame on the producers of that content.

Misunderstanding "Options not restrictions" as a marketing philosophy is partly to blame along with a superabundance of splatbooks many see as core, DM's who cannot adapt, new DMs, seeminly unlimited choices, no real guidance as to where these things might believably fit in a given game or type of campaign, the human tendency to give greater import to anything in print, and other things all come together in a confluence of things and circumstances leading to the phenomena of the disempowered DM.

I think it goes a bit deeper when as Blackwind pointed out someone who has been DMing 10yrs feels trapped in the "If its printed by WoTC it is Sacred Text" meme that has only gotten more prevalent with 3e and 3.5e.



Sundragon

 

[Imaro]

I'm disappointed when I encounter this, but scenerios like this aren't terribly uncommon. Ok, maybe a bit uncommon for a DM of 10yrs or more, but very common in newer DMs. This kind of this is directly contradicted by WoTCs official stance ie. the DM is the final authority. However, in practice the overarching marketing philosophy of "options not restrictions" which is a good philosophy in theory has turned DMs who do not read that as granting players care blanche access to everything in every WoTC book into some kind of heretic.

Hopefully D&D 4e will reiterate very clearly and concisely that the DM's authority in his or her game trumps that of any given splatbook and make sure players see this and understand it clearly. DMs don't have a right to abuse their players or ruin their fun, but they have the right to be final arbiter on whatever is and is not allowed in their game.



Sundragon

I personally don't see 4e going this route. The tidbits I've gotten(multiple numbered "core books", Iconics saved for later MM, etc.) seems to be flying in the opposite direction. They want to sell books and the best way to do this is through players. What better way to establish this than to take the stance of total neutrality(never actually saying it's all optional) while in fact promoting everything as "core", especially if targeting a new generation of consumers. Just not seeing 4e as supporting this ideology.

 

[Sundragon2012]

I personally don't see 4e going this route. The tidbits I've gotten(multiple numbered "core books", Iconics saved for later MM, etc.) seems to be flying in the opposite direction. They want to sell books and the best way to do this is through players. What better way to establish this than to take the stance of total neutrality(never actually saying it's all optional) while in fact promoting everything as "core", especially if targeting a new generation of consumers. Just not seeing 4e as supporting this ideology.

I would hope you are wrong, but you may not be.

However, I am hopeful when I see that a new DMG comes out every year along with a new PHB. Maybe, even if WoTC remains neutral, DMs will feel supported and empowered enough to do what is best for their games. Ultimately it is the DMs job to maintain his or her game. Unfortunately, the belief that whatever WoTC prints needs to be in the game for the full D&D experience (whatever the hell that is) does make it hard for newer DMs to justify reasonable limits within their settings.

I am looking forward to 4e, but only time will tell.



Sundragon

 

[Gwathlas]

My apology Sundragon my reply was rude. Interesting though that you don't feel you thread was persumptuous or rude no matter how politely worded. First no one needs a new editon to change their DMing style. Like tends to like, call it the law of similarity, your bad DM can be others perfect DM while your great DM will be other peoples nightmare.

 

[Sundragon2012]

My apology Sundragon my reply was rude. Interesting though that you don't feel you thread was persumptuous or rude no matter how politely worded. First no one needs a new editon to change their DMing style. Like tends to like, call it the law of similarity, your bad DM can be others perfect DM while your great DM will be other peoples nightmare.

Apology accepted and I apologize if I appeared presumptuous.

I'm not telling anyone how to DM any more than an article in Dragon Magazine might be, just my perception. I want to point out the possibility of a silver lining to the black cloud that some see 4e as. Its coming no matter what, so maybe it can be a fresh start. Its all about perception.



Sundragon

 

[Imaro]

Apology accepted and I apologize if I appeared presumptuous.

I'm not telling anyone how to DM any more than an article in Dragon Magazine might be, just my perception. I want to point out the possibility of a silver lining to the black cloud that some see 4e as. Its coming no matter what, so maybe it can be a fresh start. Its all about perception.



Sundragon

Well my oppinion on the matter is that with all the changes(mechanical and fluff wise) you could easily have the same type of "fresh start" with a new game system. So I don't see how 4e really helps(though I don't see it hindering this either) this type of thing.

EDIT: I guess I'm missing the point of what makes 4e better or even worth spending money on as opposed to any new gaming system. You seem to say mold it into whatever you want, but there are plenty of generic systems out there that, IMHO, are better at that than D&D. I wonder if at least a few people play D&D to play D&D.

 

[KrazyHades]

Thank you, Sundragon, for bringing up a point that has been bugging me (as a DM observing the anger of other DMs at 4E) for a while now. Why are people getting so up in arms about some changes? As DM you not only have the ability, you have the responsibility to ignore or embrace pieces of the rules as you see fit. If you think that the goblin behind the broken table should have 2/5 cover, go for it. If you don't like the rules on grappling, change them. If you want a certain monster or class, make it.

Of course, if you feel that the flavor you want for your campiagn is more easily done in 3E than in 4E, you also have the chance to turn the new edition down, or heavily adapt the new edition. I for one am going to convert my campaign and alter any aspects I don't like.